2. Institutionalised Arbitrariness Some global practices Within various domestic practices, the principles of competence, independence, and impartiality are generally upheld by each state’s judicial mechanisms. However, the unique aspect of citizenship determination is that it varies across states. Some states have strived to adhere to the principles of competence, independence, and impartiality. 62 In Germany, citizenship determination begins with district administrative authorities overseen by the Landrat, an elected district administrator, which is clearly not a judicial entity under Article 14 of the ICCPR.162 Since these authorities are not judicial and make initial determinations, the principles of competence, independence, and impartiality do not apply as they would for tribunals under Article 14. However, in appeals, administrative decisions are reviewed by independent courts that are separate from these authorities, ensuring impartiality.163 Security of tenure further supports judicial independence. Judges in these independent courts are appointed at the state level on a merit basis, ensuring competence and shielding them from partisan influences.164 In Canada, citizenship determination operates through a quasi-judicial process. The Citizenship Commission, an administrative body within the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada department, may not be considered a tribunal under Article 14 of the ICCPR.165 Despite this, Canada ensures that citizenship judges adhere to the Citizenship Judge Code of Conduct, which mandates independence and impartiality.166 These judges must understand administrative law, natural justice, and relevant legislation, thus meeting a baseline of competence, though legal experience is not mandatory.167 Citizenship revocation cases fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, bound by Article 14. However, the executive retains some influence, as the Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship may intervene in specific cases under exceptional circumstances.168 In Ivory Coast, citizenship determination is solely managed by the judiciary, ideally free from interference by other government branches, thus aligning with the principles of Article 14 of the ICCPR.169 The Constitution itself enshrines judicial independence,170 though the President and the Minister of Justice retain considerable authority over judicial appointments, transfers, and promotions, which may impact judicial independence.171 The law prescribes procedures for judge appointments, ensuring their competence.172 Thus, in Ivory Coast, independence, impartiality, and competence are upheld in law and, ideally, in practice for citizenship determination proceedings. In the United States, citizenship determination is conducted exclusively by the judiciary without executive interference. The Federal Court system handles such proceedings, fulfilling the requirements for a tribunal under Article 14 of the ICCPR. This judicial process consistently maintains the principles of independence, competence, and impartiality in both civil and criminal courts. Citizenship determination proceedings can occur in either context, ensuring that all Article 14 principles are thoroughly respected. In the United Kingdom, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) is a superior Court of Record tasked with overseeing Home Office decisions related to deportation, asylum, immigration, and citizenship issues.173 Established under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act of 1997, SIAC incorporates mechanisms to ensure independence, impartiality, and competence.174 Both SIAC and the Court of Appeal (which hears appeals from SIAC) adhere to Article 14, General Comment 32, and uphold all three principles through safeguards like judicial independence, secure tenure, professional qualifications, and impartiality protections.175